Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    May 25, 2013 11:30pm-12:01am PDT

11:30 pm
mid-september this year the department will send out notices to property owningers. owners. what we had to do is create a data base based on several different data sets. one being the assess ors information to establish date and the housing inspection records and the permanent tracking records to establish construction types and number of stories and units. that's been highly refined with the team and they have been helpful during this process and they are going to carry us forward and get us ready for september mailing. this becomes operate iv on june 15. we expect mid-september for these noticed to go out. the regulation itself deals with the caps
11:31 pm
process an how it was handled. i before i came to work for the city i was part of the mayor's soft story task force and to be in that process and to have to take our time to make sure we take our time and address these issues with regard to public safety. some of you have seen a list of soft story buildings. the list that you might see on the internet was a list that was taken from the cap study. this was done on a voluntary bases from people walking on the street. there wasn't detailed evaluations on these performance. someone may have identified a soft story
11:32 pm
building but none listed as dangerous buildings. there is roughly a 50 percent opt out. we believe about 3500 buildings already will be buildings that require retrofit. it's a very simplified form. this can be completed by any licensed architect or structural engineer and will basically clarify the scope of the ordinance fits within the ordinance type. type 5 wood grain construction, with five or more units and built before 1978. if they are determined to meet that criteria and subject to the scope of the ordinance, they will be placed in one of four compliance tiers. they are divided up to tier one and
11:33 pm
has a senior care facility or any kind of educational facility with the association of the criteria i described before. if a building collapse it's a potential for these structures. that's why those buildings have four years to complete the work. moving down to tier 2 with residential units and tier 3, catch all there, tier 4 with any ground collection base. two complex there. map books areas are of concern and we are not going to mandate through ordinance that they reach any higher standards but they will try to mitigate
11:34 pm
those standards and we've listens to the small businesses community and they understand having these commercial spaces there may be some disabled access to the department as well. they are subject to chapter 11 b which requires the cost of construction to be spent on accessible up grated. grades. everybody has one year to complete the simplified screening form. because we are going after a slightly larger universal building we want to give people the ability to opt out if they received the notice in error. on the screening form, if you have complied with dbi administrative and 94 which is the voluntary program and you have completed that work,
11:35 pm
that's an automatic opt out. all you have to do is put your permanent application on the form. dbi looks at the permit number and the permit is fienld -- final and you are out of the program. some people will say i did retrofitting after 1989 or my building is fine the way it is. this is between the screening form in asking for applying for a permit. this is where they evaluate your property and make a derjs determination and that can be from yes it's fine or needs additional work. so another opportunity to opt out. that was a very important part in our discussions. we didn't want people to get caught up in the city program when they shouldn't be there in the beginning. the ordinance that
11:36 pm
passed amended the building code and added section code b which is the language of this ordinance. all of this information can be found on our website. there is a link to the ordinance and the documents. we are working in conjunction with the department of inspection to handle the procedural elements of this ordinance and the technical stands of this ordinance. we have a bench mark study using five different standards that we use and trying to develop a consistency among them to any standards used would use any of these standards. any of these that are being developed now oftentimes when we hear from people about the building process is they have an administration beard -- board.
11:37 pm
we've been reaching all the departments and also working with dpw, san francisco fire department, basically anyone who is going to have a say in this permit process. we invitation this administrative bulletin to have appendices from all the organizations. when they walk in the door they know exactly what is expected of them. director has very adamant that we can develop a program to issue the permits over the counter. the issue of having to comply with a mandatory ordinance maybe hard enough for some property owners and stream lining it is a huge advantage to it. as far as the port appeals goes, where we might have some is the
11:38 pm
evaluation stage that i mentioned if dbi comes back and they can't reach a conclusion at the department level. we are changing the code that will require the board of examiners that will a point a small subcommittee to hear these matters specifically. we are making some amendments to the fire code and provide relative data bass on that that's basically all i have for you. there is complete information on our website. i didn't want to get too detailed here but i also want to answer any questions that the board may have. >> i have a couple questions. are there any notice requirements? >> yes. the notice will be sent out to those 6300 buildings in early september. >> let me rephrase that. >> you are talking about the
11:39 pm
other notices. the retro fits happen behind the exterior wall. these are simple over the counter approvals. of course we have to plan for the one off where someone has an out of the box with a structure that has a facade. it could potentially trigger neighborhood notification of that. the large majority will not have those requirements on them. >> and the standard of upgrade is it for safety standards >> that was developed by the policy group and by the mayor, is if a major earthquake happens and these buildings collapse we have 58,000 who are essentially renters. we have the potential katrina effect on
11:40 pm
our hand. they may leave and may not come back. the social implications of not having a place to stay are huge. if we want to be a resilient city we need to focus on this. you may not have power or gas or water, but you can sleep in your own bed. that's the goal of the performance of this ordinance. >> a very basic question, soft story, understand the criteria that this ordinance is supposed to get at in scope in terms of what they are looking at. does soft story mean wood? >> you can have a wood like. but what it is is a lack of partitions on the ground floor so when you have a massive earthquake you have so many opens with garage opens and when you think of these buildings with the first floor level. so that's a loose
11:41 pm
definition of what a soft story building is. >> wouldn't a soft story also be a concrete or steel where a concrete column comes down at the middle of the bay. >> correct. >> where is that on the website? i was flipping through the materials hoping that i will be able to read a description for the regular lay person. is there material? >> yes. you can go there by going on the website. >> can you direct me to that? >> that information in front of you will have a few pages on it because it's simplified as a directive to create the ordinance. the real background is in the caps report. i would love to bring that to you but it's a binder this thick. it's available on our website. good. >> a silly question about word choice. when you say opt out,
11:42 pm
that makes me think of something that is volunteer, like i don't want to participate in this. is this going to be clear to people what that means? >> it will be readily apparent that this is a mandatory ordinance and when i say opt out, it's a way of showing that you shouldn't have been there in the beginning. >> a compliance of something in >> exactly. the way this is we've seen mandatory retro at which -- fit. so this was kept in a binder in department of building inspection. if you were on that list you would have to go down there. this is 2013. this is going to be a live document that lives on a website and has a list of addresses. also for tents information if you are anatomy
11:43 pm
-- in a building that is dangerous. but it will be actively updated. so you are going to see this building taken off the list. as far as violations go, there is a three parts of this where notices of violations could be issued. if they don't comply with the screening form, a violation can be issued. if they don't comply with the permit, if they don't complete the work on time and then they could be issued a third notice of violation. >> i see that the cost of per dwelling unit to do this retrofit is somewhere between $10-20,000 estimating. >> it's estimating because oftentimes if you had a 70 unit building and 80 unit building it's going to cost the same.
11:44 pm
generally it's $3200 per structure. >> are there any incentives from the federal government for instance in terms of giving people tax deductions like they do for certain energy efficiency upgrades. is there anything like that to offset this type of cost because it seems like it would be hardship for some people? >> you are right. it's a substantial cost and we've had a tremendous a outreach when we were running the legislation through the process. the negotiation that happened with the tenant groups is in san francisco we have hardship process through the ramp board. we believe that process works, however we hear criticisms from groups that it's cumbersome and it puts too much own us on the residents to do this. we
11:45 pm
thought it would be better to do hardship reform for all improvements. so the community gets a big win here because they are able to stream line this process and make it easier for people who can't afford the rent increase. so there is several different option as to how they would pay for it and having them qualify for funds, for buildings that are just recently purchased, a few years ago we passed prop n that includes both seismic work, up to a third of your transfer tax can be reabated to you. it's a help. it does offset it. and when i came on board, the mayor asked before they introduced this legislation they wanted to have a clear plan as to how to pay for it. we have a few vulnerable populations that live here and some are run by
11:46 pm
non-profits that can barely afford to keep the lights on. they have greerd to issued loans for these non-profits. it's a great way to handle that portion of the community. we saw through a u and b bond and not a lot of people tried to use that funds wchl e know this is going to be the same. we started with engaging about 20 private banks that have all come to the table. if they carry the first mortgage on the property and they would refinances it and put secondary loan behind it. there are some out of the box ones that we are working on and the city is going to create our own pros, a
11:47 pm
mellowroos district. they are able to krau -- draw from the city to pay for them through property taxes. it's an interesting option because the loan travels with the property as opposed to the individual. >> did i hear you say that you are an allowing the owner to a hundred percent path -- pass through? >> to go back to one of your comments, you indicated that in the area of other code requirements that maybe triggered by this and the only one you mentioned was the 20 percent for ada or accessibility purposes, is that the only one? >> to our knowledge it's the
11:48 pm
only one. there may be some issues to deal with there. they have been very diligent. miss the ancillary work could not be part of this. if you say 20 kitchen bathroom remodels. that's to keep things very simple on the process an compliance side and to ease the burden so they are just looking at the soft story retrofitting and not plan checking anything else. >> the additional structures may have an interface with some other code issues and i don't know whether that has been thought out? >> you are correct, things like gas meter relocation or things of this nature maybe triggered but because they are limited to the ground floor, there is no need to disturb the upstairs, unless there is ways to change
11:49 pm
the board >> and the other possible concern is that the on the soft story retrofit especially on the corner buildings which are going to require. so that would be a potential appeal that the tenant is now losing the parking space because of the mandatory retrofit? >> you are correct. i think it would be a very rare situation because having been out there in the field a lot recently looking at these types of retro fits, for the most part it is attached to the retrofit wall. all the once that i have looked at in the last few months, it hasn't caused it to relocate. if there are issues that will come up that would be where they are centered around.
11:50 pm
>> they are going to give more parking. >> if there is no other questions, i would like to say thank you very much for the opportunity and if you need anything else or if there is a question after this, feel free to shoot me an e-mail. i will be happy to respond. >> thank you. before we move on to the next item i would like to see if there is any public comment on this item. seeing none. we'll start with item no. 5. item 5: appeal no. 13-035 gerard darian dba "roostertail restaurant", appellanttss vs. dept. of public health, respondent 1963 sutter street. appealing the denial on march 14, 2013, of noise limit variance.none. we'll start with item no. 5. sf 51234 project is at 916 sutter street. this is on for hearing today. we'll start with the appellant. please step forward. you have seven minutes. thank you. >> my name is gerard, this is my wife tracy green. we are
11:51 pm
owners of the hotel restaurant at sutter street. we took over an existing restaurant that had been there for over 20 years. we've been there about 15 months. we are asking for a noise variance. simple as that pretty much. you guys have our documents that we submitted. we had a health inspection. we passed our final inspection. we've gone through all the permits and process. we've done everything right. our first health inspection, the noise inside the complaint ants building passed clearly. there is a fan that goes through a light well that is a few decibels over and that's why we are asking for a noise variance
11:52 pm
and also our operation hours is not 24 hours, so the noise isn't always there. we are open from 8:30, we turn the fans on and off until around 10:00 at night. >> the noise variance is in the light wells. so that's where we were over a few decibels. wasn't in the actual apartment. and again, like gerard said, we passed all this originally. wong did the initial inspection and to be honest we are not sure why we are still here. to have it be brought up again,
11:53 pm
the complaint ant, we have been here before for a patio. we were in compliance and we do practice all procedures out for us from the city. the health inspector is for us continuing and was against this whole having to come out and do the inspection and backtrack and do it over again. >> we also had a meeting with the department of health about a month ago and their initial response was just turn the fans off which we agreed to. we are
11:54 pm
asking for three decibels over which is not much sound it not 24 hours a day. >> we are also in a mixed use neighborhood. >> we are a restaurant. it's a tough business, we are trying to do our best. >> i have a question but i don't want to interrupt your presentation. >> what changed between the first and second test? >> the first test was done in the apartment in the owner of the building and we were well below compliance. the second, the person that owns the building came was really in my opinion looking for a problem
11:55 pm
with us and wanted to have the noise measured in the light well in the property line. >> in your restaurant you only had one test? >> it's not in our restaurant. our initial inspection through city planning was on the roof. they had new equipment. we took over, >> so it was after your remodel. >> yes. and everything passed. >> the second test was in the light well? >> the second test was done by the health department for a noise complaint in her unit >> i'm asking about your light well? >> that was the third inspection. she called out the health inspector again and they did a light well test and with
11:56 pm
the fans on and ambient noise we were a little above like three decibels over. >> is it the same equipment? >> same equipment. we have upgraded the entire hood and all the equipment. it's in our report. >> all the equipment was done by an hbac engineer. we had to put a specific hood and all that was done to city specifications. >> i see there is a recommendation that if you built some barrier around the exhaust system that it might reduce that a few decibels. would you be able to do that? >> well, we've spent upward of
11:57 pm
$40,000 on this and to be honest, no. i mean, it's coming back to this we complied with everything that we were supposed to and we passed. and now we personally just believe this is another measure to have us -- to come after us to be honest. >> we are a struggling business. we have to keep paying more money out. >> so you are saying it would be a financial hardship? >> yeah. we spent thousands of dollars dealing with this person on our patio to get that open so we can have outdoor seating for our customers which is what people want in san francisco and that ate up thousands of dollars and everything comes at that
11:58 pm
extreme cost towards us when we have complied all the way through with the city at every point and we just believe that measuring the sound in the light well is a step to just come after us for no reason. >> why would you think that someone was trying to come after you? what facts do you have to support that? >> because it's been happening since we remodeled and open our business. >> you think that's why these complaints are invalid. >> there is multiple complaints for our contractor and they
11:59 pm
immediately sent letters of apology. there was one person who didn't want that going on. that was the person we are dealing with today. >> did you find out why? >> they had a meeting with the task force. we didn't really come to a conclusion. >> you didn't understand why someone didn't want you to have a patio? >> no. the back is a parking lot. not really, i understand noise and all that. we don't have a building behind us that we are disturbing. again we all know this city and some of the patios that are existing and tenants right above and all that. that's not our situation. so, know we really didn't understand. noise and things like that, being clean and
12:00 am
stuff was of worry some. we scored a 98 on our health inspection and keep it very clean because it is our business. we with respect to sure why we were. >> i think we are concerned about the neighbors and we don't want to be -- we want to be in that neighborhood and we feel like we are a good part of that neighborhood and we have neighbors that support us and are happy with everything that we've done. it's just a tough situation. >> have you sat down with them and had conversation? >> we have tried and with other people mediating. >> so you have sat down with them? >> we have sat down with this person. the issue of the noise in the light we